This weekend marks a very important moment in the history of international justice. In the wake of the controversial decision by the Kenyan Parliament to pass a motion to withdraw from the ICC, member states of the African Union (AU) are gathering in an extraordinary summit to discuss the possibility for African states to either withdraw from the Rome Statute or to end their cooperation with the ICC. Before analyzing the potential outcomes, here are couple of key points made by the AU Assembly in a report from May of this year:

“[The Assembly] DEEPLY REGRETS that the request by the African Union (AU) to the United Nations (UN) Security Council to defer the proceedings initiated against President Omar Al Bashir of The Sudan and Senior State Official of Kenya, in accordance with Article 16 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) on deferral of cases by the UN Security Council, has not been acted upon; […]

EXPRESSES CONCERN at the threat that the indictment of H.E Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta and H.E William Samoei Ruto, the President and Deputy-President of the Republic of Kenya respectively, may pose to the on-going efforts in the promotion of peace, national healing and reconciliation, as well as the rule of law and stability, not only in Kenya, but also in the Region.”

This weekend’s extraordinary summit seems to be a reaction to these regrets and concerns. Continue reading →

(Note: the translated portions of the original French letter below are not an official translation)

The summer of 2013 witnessed the launch of a petition, initiated by “52 prominent women” including the Congolese lawyer Ms. Hamuly Rély, calling for the creation of an International Criminal Tribunal for the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). The petition, which is still open for signature, was addressed to the French President François Hollande, the American President Barack Obama, the Secretary General of the UN Ban Ki Moon, former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson, Chaiperson of the African Union Commission Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, Secretary General of the Organisation for Francophonie Abdou Diouf, President of the European Union Herman Van Rompuy, and the Presidency of the UN Security Council.

Before giving some personal thoughts (III) and addressing the potential judicial consequences of the establishment of such a Tribunal (II), this note focus on the content of the petition (I).

Beyond The Hague is delighted to welcome Sophie Rigney for this timely piece on the relevance of international law to the Syrian situation. This post is cross-posted from New Matilda, where it was first published on 28 August.

International law’s capacity to remedy the crisis in Syria is fraught. How will investigators collect evidence under sniper fire? What about Russia’s veto – and US intervention?

The alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria has galvanised calls for action to stop further mass atrocities, and to ensure those responsible are held to account. While the conflict in Syria has progressed for over two years and claimed between 80,000 and 100,000 lives, this chemical weapons attack has been widely perceived as having crossed a new line of unacceptability in the war. It has serious implications for the Syrian conflict.

Photo credit: NBC

There are two separate, but linked, issues of international law that arise from this recent attack.

The first is the question of external intervention through use of force (either by a country like the United States, a coalition of countries, or a regional cooperation institution like NATO).

In particular, what prerequisites would an external party or parties need to satisfy in order to legally use force in Syria? Military intervention is, in principle, contrary to Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter. Recent comments by US President Barack Obama demonstrate that international law is very much to be considered as part of this decision-making process (or at least, that having a legal rationale for the use of force is seen to be preferable).